“racialization has created these “imagined communities” that pivot around some imagined connection.”

This is the crux of the matter: American ethnic groups are fake, conceived in the bowels of the US Census Bureau, legitimized by universities, and exploited by politicians. American ethnic groups are as imaginary as the efficiency of unregulated markets and the progressiveness of Democrats, not to mention the US’ noble intentions when invading and occupying nations that pose no threat.

However, I do not think that the meek acceptance by many Americans – not only to “self-identify” as a member of a foreign cultural group on forms, but to actually believe that they have a foreign culture – arose not from racialism but individualism. Americans could not be celebrating their presumed diversity without the underlying individualist belief that you can independently re-invent yourselves without reference to others, indeed, without any interaction whatsoever.

Extreme individualism is also the reason why Americans do not have a national health care system, strong labor unions, and a socialist party. It is the reason why the US is so far to the right of the rest of the world that you have become scary and alien.

So much for your “multiculturalism”…

You raise important issues, but I don’t recall making any statement about the process of acculturation, what I was trying to say is that “American” culture is not color-blind, the values of “American” culture are Anglo-Saxon values, including, like sociologist (not the comedian) Robin Williams showed, racism and group superiority. But you are absolutely right that language is an important indicator of assimilation but the statistics for linguistic assimilation of Latinos are different than from previous European immigrants. You are also right that the assimilation process today is quite different from half a century ago. While it is true that Latinos are probably the first immigrant group to learn English by the second or third generation the process is more complex. For example, Germans who arrived in the U.S. before universal education, took a while longer to learn English. Latino children, now inserted in a public educational system (the most powerful assimilationist machine in the nation) learn English quite quickly. But, they soon learn there are “superior” and “inferior” groups and they also learn that some languages (English) are superior to other languages (Spanish). So young Latinos try to shed the stigmatized “Latino” encasement by not speaking English in public. To complicate things further, since there is a large foreign-born immigrant population, power Spanish-media, even in the third generation many continue being bilingual. (I believe that this language retention tends to be higher among Puerto Ricans for reasons too complex to describe here.) The PEW 2002 survey on assimilation and language found that 22 per cent of third generation Latinos are bilingual.

I am not in agreement that “individuals are not socialized into the society the are born, but into the society of their ancestors.” The data does not support this and my anecdotal experience raising three kids tells me that my kids were shaped by forces more influential than the ones we could generate within the family. I think that with the developments in technology this will be come even more true.

As to the parties, as a socialist I would prefer to vote for a socialist party that is able to muster a political platform. But in this country, must of us socialists vote holding our noses and choosing for the “menos malo.” While I am not a cheerleader for Obama the “minute” differences between the Democrats and the Republicans are important. Bush would have probably sent military aid (like in Haiti, etc.) to support the gorilas. Yes, Obama’s response is soft, but it is significantly different.

I also don’t think that the definition of community that I prefer is different from yours, if I am not participating within an ethnic community, living the culture, then I don’t feel I am a part of it. but in the U.S. racialization has created these “imagined communities” that pivot around some imagined connection. Therefore, “Latinos” are presumed to be “Latinos” because society treats them as “Latinos” even when they are English dominant, middle class, highly educated. Sometimes, they delude themselves and say they are un-hyphenated “Americans” until they walk down the street and someone hurls a racist epithet.

Peace,
Melissa

“However, the reality is that many Latinos who define themselves as “white” (close to half) also tend to be more likely to vote Republican, more likely to be middle class etc. So assimilation does not occur in a generic way, it occur in a racialized way ”

How can voting for a Gringo party (Democrats) be an indicator of non-assimilation into Gringo society? The distinction between the ideology and policies of your two political parties is lost upon Latin Americans, since we have viable socialist – as in anti-imperial, anti-neoliberal – parties. Your are granting too much importance to minute differences within your political culture that only natives can perceive and missing the great big characteristic of American political culture which is that you have no left.

And how can you say that being a member of the low class is a mark of not being assimilated into a society when all societies have classes? You are confusing a part of society with society itself.

“As Fannon said the most powerful weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed, if people think like “whites” they will act as whites”

And if you studied sociology in an American university you will express yourself like one. My point is, Mexican sociologists do not use your definition of community and what makes an individual a member of one, of class, and of the significance of voting preferences and the consumption of piñatas and mariachi music. In Mexico, a Mixtec remains a Mixtec despite having a middle class income and education or voting for the right-wing PAN. What makes him or her a Mixtec is living and participating in Mixtec society, sharing and maintaining bonds of solidarity with the community, being able to communicate with other members by virtue of speaking the language, and by transmitting Mixtec language and culture to the next generation. A Mexican sociologist, and Mixtecs themselves, would never refer to an individual who was born and raised in Mexico City, whose parents and children do not speak Mixtec, and who has no bonds with the Mixtec ethnic group as a Mixtec just because he or she has a Mixtec grandparent.

Being an American who is poor, brown, and a Democrat are not markers of Latin American culture despite not being considered “white” by Americans. A Mexican who is rich, white, and admires Obama does have a Latin American culture because he/she was socialized in Mexico.

Thanks for your comments. Since Villaraigosa was elected, and at least before he announced he would not run for the governorship of Calfironia, his public relations atff has tried to downplay the Latinismo he strongly used at the beginning of his career. He recently did not participate in an event where the audience was mostly Latinos, in an effort to not to appear he was only reaching out to Latinos.

While race is a social construction, a fiction perpetuated by our most important social institutions (education, economy, political etc.) it has the power to provide access to some and exlusion for others. Race is not about culture, it’s about power. Ethnicity is about culture. However, the reality is that many Latinos who define themselves as “white” (close to half) also tend to be more likely to vote Republican, more likely to be middle class etc. So assimilation does not occur in a generic way, it occur in a racialized way. As Fannon said the most powerful weapon of the opressor is the mind of the oppresssed, if people think like “whites” they will act as whites (whites are also racialized and more diverse than what race can explain). The reference in my piece refers to conservatives like Peter Skerry that argue that Mexicans (and by extension other Latinos) will be mainstreamed like Italians, Irish, Germans etc. However, we all know that the majority of Latinos will be racialized as “non-white.”

Our public conversations about race are very devoid of racial terms, we speak in codes, just like Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh and other right wind ideologues speak about race without mentioning race.

As to a “hybrid” Latino culture, this is happening already and it varied by region. In Califas, you have Salvadoreans who are Chicano in Culture and in New York you have Peruvians who are Boricua in culture. Puerto Ricans celebrate bithdays with pinatas and Hondurans use Mariachi bands in LA to celebrate weddings. Go figure!

Thanks for your comments.

Too ethnic? What does that mean? He looks like a regular politician, like the mayors of, say, Guadalajara or Monterrey. Are you using “ethnic” as a euphemism for “pre-industrial” or “poor”?

“Are “Latinos” just another temporarily racialized group on its way to becoming mainstreamed (which in the U.S. means white)?”

Yes. There is no is no inter-generational transmission of culture as the statistic that only 5% of the children of immigrants speak their parents’ language and, by the 3rd generation, the language is lost. That does not mean non-white people become white; it means that children are enculturated into the society they are raised in. Are you confusing race with culture?

“In a culture where the “color-blind” ideology is dominant any enunciation of ethnicity or race is taboo.”

In the US talking about race and ethnicity is taboo?! It is all you talk about! Americans have to be the most race obsessed people in the world. As to your “ethnic groups”, they are no more than a euphemism for race.

““Latino” is a category that is still empty of content although it might truly become a social reality in the future as diverse Latin-American origin communities intermarry and begin to develop a hybrid “latino” culture and identity.”

Given that there is no inter-generational transmission of culture or language, all you would get is another brownish generation. Call it “Latinou” if you will.

“the real ethnic groupings are the Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican and other communities with their unique historical experiences and cultures.”

A Mexican, a Cuban, and a Puerto Rican have much more in common, starting with language, than they do with Americans with Latin American ancestors. Furthermore, why do Mexicans cease to be members of a nation and become members of an ethnic group once we cross the border? Do Americans also become “ethnics” when you cross to Tijuana?

As you know, every category above our individual name leads to some higher level of abstraction, so I prefer to refer to folks, if possible, to their national origin. To talk in broader terms I think that the cumbersome term of “Latin-American descent” is more appropriate than “latino” or “hispanic.” It has been used less in the commodfying process than the other two and at least recognizes some geographic, historical, cultural link.

I absolutely agree with your point that the court would have benefited more from a candidate coming from the non-corporate world (Thurgood Marshall) and I agree that I would have been happier with a more progressive candidate than her. However, I don’t think a candidate like that would receive any support from the establishment. At least, Sonia has some connection to her working class background, it remains to be seen for how long.

Thanks for your comments.

More attention must be paid to the nominee’s record while an attorney and judge on questions of corporate power, criminal matters, and individual/civil/labor rights. The court handles far more cases pertaining to these issues than abortion and affirmative action.

Further, advocates for issues such as education, poverty, labor, and civil rights should be more vehement and vocal in demanding more nominees from the non-corporate law sector. Thurgood Marshall was the last jurist with a non-corporate background. Where are the nominees who toiled in and presided over matters from the public defender’s office, personal injury, immigrant rights, labor rights, civil rights, criminal justice arenas? A court stacked with former corporate attorneys who have little or no experience or concern with individual rights stacks the deck against the interests of the people.

People are too easily placated with racial and gender diversity with a good Horatio Alger story thrown in for good measure. A nominee’s humble beginnings don’t mean squat; there are zillions of politicians with such backgrounds who legislate against interests of those he/she left behind. Don’t forget that the wolf in sheep’s clothing often looks just like you. The diversity most needed is in career background. We don’t need another corporatist stooge on the court (but that’s what we will get).

Side note: I am sick of the patronizing canard of “how (fill in blank with minority) now have hope and can dream of doing great things now that one of “their own” is nominated or elected”, “how little (fill in blank with minority) girls or boys can now believe they can achieve, yada fucking yada.”

Most minorities were trying do their best to make a good life for selves and families before an Obama or Sotomayor, etc. came on the scene. It’s 2009, not 1909 and most are well aware of their brethren working in all areas of society these days. Those of us who give a damn about getting by and making something of ourselves didn’t have to see a biracial black face in the White House or Puerto-Rican nominated to the big court in order to have “hope and dreams” or whatever condescending shit some pundit or idiot minority “spokesman” comes up with.

is nothing but theatrics to give the impression of a conflict between
the Democrats and Republicans, but the fix is in, and we have only one
single party which is the corporate party.